On Campus Hiring Is Broken, And This Isn’t Helping

Episode Notes

Transcript

Joe Patrice:

Hello everyone.

Kathryn Rubino:

Hey there, Joe.

Joe Patrice:

Welcome back to another edition of Thinking Like A Lawyer. I’m Joe Patrice from Above the Law. I am joined by Kathryn Rubino. Hey.

Kathryn Rubino:

Hey.

Joe Patrice:

And Chris Williams. What’d it do? And we are here to do our weekly duty of talking about some of the big stories from the week that was in legal.

Kathryn Rubino:

Aha, you said duty. Sorry, I have a toddler.

Chris Williams:

Don’t

Kathryn Rubino:

Put that

Chris Williams:

On them.

Kathryn Rubino:

Don’t

Chris Williams:

Put that on them. You would’ve said it either way.

Kathryn Rubino:

I mean, probably not, but you never can tell. I suppose.

Chris Williams:

I know

Joe Patrice:

You are time for some small talk. So I have been on the road back and forth. I’ve not been home in a while. I was at Relativity Fest in Chicago and then I went to an event in Houston and went direct. So I haven’t really been back, but I want to talk a little bit about my trip to Houston because the show came up while I was there.

Kathryn Rubino:

Ran into a fan. Did you?

Joe Patrice:

It did. It actually did listen. Ran into a regular listener, but that actually isn’t what I was going to talk about. I also ran into somebody who is not a regular listener and this person had a conversation. I was asked the question, what did I think about this one topic? And I said, I actually have talked about this on the show before, which I was asked, you do a lot of things with ai. One of these students has a thought. Explain your thought. And the thought was, I think Lanker is racist. And I was like, I have absolutely had this conversation. We dug up the episode to show her. Yeah, we had a whole listen to the first small talk of this. We talked about it for five minutes.

Chris Williams:

And who brought that up? You

Joe Patrice:

Damn right. I said, Chris brought up this issue already and we’ve talked it through and yeah,

Kathryn Rubino:

Amazing.

Chris Williams:

And here’s the thing, people are, part of me was like, oh my God, is this a hot take? And I was like, no, it’s been a week. And we went from Clinker to Rosa Sparks. This is just black people. This is just black people.

Joe Patrice:

No, but it was great because the question was asked, here’s this off the wall idea. And I was like, not off the wall. We’ve in fact had a whole section on this. So small talk for the win.

Kathryn Rubino:

There you go.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah,

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah. Well, I will make my own contribution to small talk, which is, it is nearly Halloween, and I do in fact have an AFO mentioned toddler. So this week I spent some time trying to figure out Halloween costumes, and I feel like it’s undersold how difficult it is to figure out a costume for a kid that is unlikely to keep anything on their head. I do not have the kind of kid that will joyfully wear a hat or a hood or even a clip in her hair. She fights it every step of the way. And so many costumes, particularly I live in the Northeast, there’s a high likelihood that the outdoor events will require some sort of a jacket or something that without headgear that still look like the thing that you are. It’s like a challenge.

Joe Patrice:

So Eleanor Roosevelt, what do we got?

Kathryn Rubino:

I think we’re going to do Abby Cabi.

Joe Patrice:

Well, that would’ve been my second

Kathryn Rubino:

Guess. I think we’re doing Abby Dhabi because I found these hair bows, which again, she’s not great at hair bows, but she’s better at a hair bow than she is at a headband or even a mask that she would not keep on her head for even a second. And here’s the smart momming moment that I had. So I got the costume, it’s a little dress with fairy wings. She’s a Muppet, but also a fairy, but she’s pink. And so I found a pair of pink fleece pajamas that I’m going to put on her, and then the dress over. But it doesn’t look ridiculous because Abby’s pink.

Joe Patrice:

Oh, okay.

Kathryn Rubino:

So it’s actually looks correct. So I felt really proud of that. I thought it was really clever of me.

Chris Williams:

Well, that’s nice. Okay, so recently I’ve been back on my bike. I’ve been cycling, getting my bike butt back, not saying in a static way, but it hurts less to ride my bike. And that’s been one of the big breakthroughs. I will get my bike butt back though, so if anybody wants to hit the Patreon, give me two or three months. But yeah, it’s been really nice. That’s all.

Joe Patrice:

Well, okay, I think that we’ve been on this all small talk for a bit. I think we can transition into the main topics of the week. What is our top story? Oh, there are some new partners at Kirkland we think.

Kathryn Rubino:

Question mark. Yeah, this is a really interesting story that our colleague wrote up. So every year all these big law firms make a bunch of partners. Kirkland is the largest firms certainly in terms of revenue, but they have thousands of lawyers. That’s a big deal. They make a giant class of non-equity tiered partners every year. And there’s a press release that goes out like, oh, congratulate our 75 new partners in the following offices. But this year mom’s the word.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah,

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah. They’ve decided that they’re not going to publicize who has made partner and it’s

Joe Patrice:

Do we have speculation on why this is?

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, there’s a bunch of speculation that apparently every year after they make the announcement of who’s made partner, many of them or significant enough percentage find work elsewhere. And in an effort, I guess to stem that lateral flow of newly minted partners, they’re not going to tell anybody who they are. But I mean, it’s weird, right? Because it’s still going to be on the website because you want your clients to know that you’re being serviced by a partner, not just an associate anymore, and that kind of stuff. So it’s not like it doesn’t exist out there. If somebody wants to lateral, they’re still going to lateral and it just feels like really petty and small for such a big firm especially. But I don’t know, those press announcements, that’s the kind of shit you sent to your mom and you’re like, look ma, it was worth it. I know you haven’t seen me at Christmas for the last five years, but this is why. And I don’t know, it just feels really, really petty.

Chris Williams:

I just imagine some world where, and I’m assuming it’s not this one where this is actually a good move and recruiters are like, oh my God, how will we know? There has to still be other ways that people discover, Hey, I’m a partner. I’d like to move elsewhere. Maybe I don’t know. They put out their resume or they update their LinkedIn. There will still be other ways to people to find out and lateral if they want to lateral. I don’t get how this is anything but a screw ass moment for people that wanted to share their successes.

Joe Patrice:

A hundred percent. That’s an excellent point. So it is going to be discoverable through LinkedIn who these folks are. But I will say LinkedIn is a, you have to go there and kind of do some searching and know what you’re doing from a recruiting perspective, since I’ve done some consulting and know how that world works a little bit, this is a little disruptive to the extent that if it’s not visible on the website, which is what’s gets scraped to be put into a lot of these databases. So if you’re targeting, you need to find for a new opening, a partner with this level experience at these sorts of firms. If it’s not on that website, it’s probably not getting scraped into this database. So when you make your initial touch out to a bunch of folks and say like, Hey, this opening has come up. You’re one of the people who seems like you would be a fit, you might miss them. It is still findable, but it is something that you have to go piecemeal through, which is really

Kathryn Rubino:

Unfortunate. But isn’t it also true that okay, there’s not going to be a press release that gives you the clear list of who’s the partner, but I have to imagine, and I guess maybe this is something we’ll discover with time, but Kirkland’s website will still be updated if you’re saying Joe Schmo used to be of council and that website, that kind of hint,

Joe Patrice:

You would think

Kathryn Rubino:

His bio is still going to be updated to say partner,

Joe Patrice:

Which then it will get in the data

Kathryn Rubino:

And then it will get into the database and it has to be updated. I think because when the clients get their bills and are like, why am I getting charged this for? Who is this? Why is it this rate? I think that well, it’s a partner and I think that information has to be available.

Joe Patrice:

I assume clients will just accept that if the bill says this is a partner, it’s a partner, but I hear you, you would think that the website would address that. Yeah,

Kathryn Rubino:

And listen, the website’s just going to say attorney, I think it’s got to be updated eventually. You have to know that they’re a partner and maybe it just kind of delays in that side of that kind of bum rush or sort of onslaught of the initial. But I don’t know. It just, again, super, super petty

Joe Patrice:

And their website does distinguish between associates and partners, which there’s an argument to be had that I know that there’s some websites that go the route of only putting up partners or putting everybody up, really hiring a lawyer off of, if you’re hiring Kirkland, you’re probably not doing it by going to the website cold. Right? A hundred percent Sure. There are ways that they could scrub that information and not share it, but they don’t currently. I just went to check. I thought that was a great point. Yeah, it’s a weird decision and I don’t think it will slow things down all that much for hiring.

Kathryn Rubino:

Hey, if anything, honestly, I think it would probably only increase it, right? If you are someone who recently got made partner, and I’m sure you made plenty of sacrifices to get to that point, and then the firm seemingly snubs you in this very public way that a lot of people are talking about that can’t engender good feelings towards the firm. If anything, it just kind of exacerbates whatever resentment you have towards the firm and you’re like, Hey, maybe another firm won’t be this awful.

Joe Patrice:

So I was gone all week, so I really haven’t had a lot of conversation. We all talk throughout the day, normally during working, but I have been in conference mode, so I actually didn’t chat with you all as this was going down. Was there any speculation about the motivation for this potentially being to avoid any imperial entanglement basically? And Kirkland’s one of those firms that is involved with this administration is part of this logic. We don’t want to put out a press release that’s going to allow somebody to look and say, why did you promote all these black lawyers and women, which this administration might do. It keeps it under wraps and you can fix it on the backend, but there’s no press release that somebody could just go down really easily.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, I mean maybe again, I don’t know what their promotion class looked like, if that was even part of the thing, but you have to think they did sign the deals with the administration. So assumedly on the good list, they’re no longer on the naughty list. So I mean maybe I’d be more, maybe that’s part of the rationale. If it was a firm who felt that they narrowly escaped the attention of the administration, but they’re already giving a hundred million dollars in free shit.

Joe Patrice:

I feel like the lesson of what happened with the universities is that the first rule of proto fascism is if you make a deal with them, that actually makes you more on their radar

Kathryn Rubino:

Welfare.

Joe Patrice:

I guess they now are going to more police to make sure that you stay in line.

Kathryn Rubino:

But this kind of goes back to a drum we’ve been beating a million times about these deals, right? They’re terrible deals. They are spineless deals. And again, kind of goes to the, you’re not willing to stand up for yourselves. You’re not willing to stand up for your people. You’d rather their accomplishments go unacknowledged on the fear that you’ll get. That doesn’t make me feel great about that firm.

No matter which of these explanations are at the root of it or which combination. So back to the subject of recruitment, but we’re going to talk about it from a slightly different lens, but the law school recruitment Above the Law, we got some tipsters who were able to confirm a new practice that is taking over some of the top tier law schools, which is that big law firms are deputizing, for lack of a better word, law students that have already accepted offers at the firm to be their eyes and ears on the ground and participate in the recruitment process for those. What else? Students kind expense accounts. Some have dollar limits associated with them, some feel, at least from people who have experienced it, they’re pretty unlimited. So it’s giving law students the ability to experience that expense account life before the actual crush of the hours that are accompanied with them. But the other sort of interesting, and listen, I blame this entirely on

The National Association of Legal Placement. They did in 2018, I believe it was. They kind of went hands off. There had been a bunch of rules about when law firms can approach students, when they can have interviews, how long offers that they make to law students have to stay open, all this kind of things, which really created the on-campus recruitment process for rising two Ls to get their jobs at the end of their two L summer, which generally led to their post-graduation employment as well. But in 2018, they kind of took the guardrails off entirely and now it’s terrible out there. It’s really awful. You cannot overstate what a disaster buckle it is. There are exploding offers. Someone elses are getting offers before. They have grades at the end of their first semester and the offers explode before they get their grades and have an opportunity to interview with anyone else.

Or they’re taking these big law offers, only having interviewed at that one law firm having very little sense of what these firms are or what they do or anything like that. Especially if you’re come from a background or family that doesn’t have a ton of connections in the world of big law, which a ton of folks. So you wind up with offers, you have to take them, otherwise you lose them. Or maybe you do keep them open for longer, but you still don’t have the same process, the same sort of knowledge base that kind of the organized OCI process really imparted on folks. I didn’t know what all these firms were or what they stood for or what it meant to accept an offer from Skadden versus Baker McKenzie or something like that. You just don’t know what the nuances are between big law firms if you aren’t really seeped in it until you are forced to have a bootcamp with your law schools, OCI people and be like, okay, this is the booklet.

This is what you need to know. This is what you need to do. And that really, I think is usually important for students to make the right decisions for where they’re going to wind up post law school. And I think that we’re also going to see a ton of lateral moves earlier and earlier in careers. It used to be sort of gosh to lateral before your second or third year, but with folks forced to make these choices before their first semester or first year of law school is even completed, I think you’re going to see a ton more people being like, yeah, I didn’t know what I was even, I didn’t even know that this firm existed, let alone anything else. And one of the other kind of interesting spins is, and I’m sure other firms are doing this, but the two firms that we have confirmed are giving this walking around money to upper class law students are Sullivan and Cromwell and Paul Weiss.

Joe Patrice:

Where have I heard those two on a list recently?

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah. They are both sort of MAGA adjacent. Paul Weiss obviously was the first law firm that signed one of those spineless deals that we were talking about earlier with the Trump administration. Sullivan and Cromwell is Trump’s AttorneySync. His in personal capacity in his criminal case and according to reports, was involved in the negotiation of the deal between Paul Weiss and the administration.

Joe Patrice:

Now I will say in a charitable move, I will say the kind of firms that have money to burn where they say, Hey, here’s some walking around money tend to be the firms at the very top, and that was disproportionately the people who made those sorts of deals. So there is kind of a conflation on that front that said the less charitable answer is who we just had the associate report that came the law students. It was law students like summer

Kathryn Rubino:

Associates, it was summer associate,

Joe Patrice:

And we got that report back and apparently a very large majority of that cohort have very dim views of the firms that took those deals. So it would suggest that those are firms that probably need to invest in fixing that reputation and recruiting.

Kathryn Rubino:

I think the other part of that story is that there is this information, this disproportionate amount of information that big law firms have all the information and the students oftentimes don’t. But these stories about the big law deals with the administration kind of broke the legal industry contain. They became mainstream media stories. It was more than just legal news that was talking about them, mainstream news, A, B, C, all the big folks were talking about it. So if you don’t have a ton of information about the legal industry but are in law school, you’ve probably heard about these deals in a way that you might not have heard about some of the nuances of the new products liability practice at. You might not have heard about that, but you have heard about these deals and so you don’t know a lot, but you have a dim view of certain firms and nothing getting rid of that dim view than throwing around a bunch of cash.

Joe Patrice:

The New York Times even did a whole piece on this blog that covers it. They

Kathryn Rubino:

Did, yeah. It was really insightful

Joe Patrice:

And

Kathryn Rubino:

Striking the imagery that they used in that story as

Joe Patrice:

Well. We really did look like we were releasing a nineties indie band album or something.

Chris Williams:

One quick point,

And I’m happy to get back to our album cover, but my immediate thoughts on the deputization of other students to go get other students, and I’d say this, I went to WashU Washington University in St. Louis. I don’t mean this as a particular indict to WashU. I imagine it’s like this at most law school campuses, but I think that there’s a tendency towards de facto segregation. I’ve noticed that a lot of the study groups tended to be white or not necessarily white, but they tended to be of the same racial makeup. There tended to be white students studying over here, black students studying over here. A lot of the international students that tended to be Asian just because of the makeup of the school over there. And one other thing about more standardized processes that involve actual applications and things like that, it’s a lot easier to have equitable inputs when it’s rather just people and clicks who are likely going to tell the people in those clicks, Hey, join me. Because the way that that plays out is most of the people there, for example, you’re going to get a bigger shot of what the majority looks like without any intervening factors that could help people that would otherwise be looked over, get a shot. And it’s big law as is. So it’s like it’s not like it’s the blackest area of law to start with or the most Asian area of law to start with. So that was my thoughts. We mentioned the reason that this happened is, what was it, the NALP or something?

Yeah, yeah. They kind of laxed regulation and it’s one of those things where it’s like, oh, well this is dumb what have you, or can you believe how foolish this is? But it’s also there will be questions about every once in a while people ask why is law so white or what are the things that go into play to normalizing this knowing that things could have been elsewise, and this is one of those things where a choice was made.

Kathryn Rubino:

I think you’re a hundred percent right, and I also think it’s weirdly bold on the law firm’s position to let students represent them. That’s puts a lot of faith in students that you don’t have a ton of information about. They don’t work for you full time at best. They’ve had a summer with you, which is not the same represented. You don’t have a ton. Why would you want, you don’t know what they’re going to be like when they’re taking other students out to a bar late night. That just seems like, I don’t know. I would not be comfortable if it wasn’t somebody that I had a ton of experience with.

Joe Patrice:

To Chris’s point about the study group stuff, from my perspective, that speaks to the breakdown of a lot of how steps in the process are getting broken down in really dangerous ways.

NLP not being there for this purpose means we’re doing this right out of the gate. You’ve just shown up in law school, which is the time where you are most likely to have just gone to probably implicitly biased driven peer group because you haven’t had time to meet other people based on anything more substantive. On top of that, we have these groups who have been fighting the law review processes and stuff like that where the groups you would join throughout your two L years. So before you would have this sort of, or throughout the years where you would start building these sorts of relationships that used to have diversity initiatives to make sure that you would be working closely with other people who you might not have gravitated towards in the first place and build relationships with them. Those are being broken down to at all levels of this process. It’s being broken down more and more such that, yeah, those original, you just walked in and started talking to the person that you implicit Biasedly started talking to because they were sitting next to you iib about people there.

Chris Williams:

Yeah, and one of the things and about it, because again, not an indict against WashU, but I do think it’s a national thing. That’s probably how most people’s social groups are just through historical processes of acculturation. But anyway, to Joe’s point, one of the things that I’ve noticed, I was like, Hey, we are self-segregating. I tried to break out of that by going to events held by affinity groups outside of Fed, so which is generally the white Republican group,

Kathryn Rubino:

Which is also a affinity group,

Chris Williams:

But no, white people don’t have identity politics, so you can’t say that. But no, but I would try to go to say just like a black law student association events, I was a member, Asian Pacific Islander law school students, associations, what have you, and as you start to see those types of groups die out, it becomes harder to deliberately break out of the tendency towards the fact of those segregating because at least at those events you have an excuse to be social. There’s an expectation that you can talk to people that aren’t in your clique and have it be not a weird, why would this person want to talk to me thing?

Joe Patrice:

My law school, thankfully the way that student housing was structured, we mostly hung out with the people on our floor, which was a random sampling and diverse, which helped rather than that. But if you have, for instance, I know other schools, the way in which they do law student housing isn’t like, here’s one big floor of a dorm for grad students. A lot of them have like a, oh yeah, we got you an apartment over here, and you’re like, yeah,

Kathryn Rubino:

I was in part of grad school housing and my roommate for the majority of my law school career got her PhD in some science thing that I should

Joe Patrice:

Probably remember exactly. There’s no bonding with your class and your class. Yeah, yeah. So I was very lucky. NYU did it the way they did, which allowed you to meet people who you outside of just like, oh, the person sitting next to me, whatever. But yeah,

Chris Williams:

That feels so foreign to me because in my experience, my grad school housing was, I went on Craigslist and I found a spot that I could afford, and it just happened to be in the area of St. Louis where it was other broke black folks because St. Louis, the history of it, it is, you can see the racial divide in the infrastructure. There’s an area called the Big Ben, I think they call the Delmar Divide Abbey, and it’s basically baked into the city itself. There’s a white affluent area and then everybody else. But yeah, I would occasionally go to parties where my people, I would meet in my cohort that happened to be different socioeconomic backgrounds and we’d have to travel, I’d have to ride out to see them. I was like, oh, they’re living different. I noticed they tend to live near each other. So yeah, so much of finding a place to live during law school indirect can indirectly impact where you get a job, if you get a job who you know enough to reach out to try to get you a job. And it is the thing about it, I think these are ground level common sense things, but they’re harder to take account for these interpersonal aspects that set the groundwork for some people, literally the rest of their lives and their careers. It’s these sort of intangible things like who are your friends with in the first week of school?

And ideally that wouldn’t be such a big determinant, but with things like this, that’s what I’m assuming that’s what it’s going to skew toward.

Joe Patrice:

Alright, let’s move ahead to let’s do this story. AI and hallucinations, we’ve talked about them. They are the periodical fun story that we get almost on a daily basis at this point. Some lawyer puts in a brief with a bunch of fake cases or something like that and we all point and laugh. Mostly they don’t get sanctioned too hard. Sometimes they do. The wrinkle is that earlier this year there were two federal judges who put out opinions that pretty quickly it seemed like there were some issues. Parties were named in them that weren’t parties in the case. Sometimes there were some fake citations. Sometimes the citations weren’t necessarily wrong, but the quotes from the citations were wrong. That seems suspicious. Then those judges

Kathryn Rubino:

Suspicious,

Joe Patrice:

Those judges have pulled those opinions, replaced them with corrected opinions and said it was a clerical issue and not spoken about it. Other than that, last week Senator Grassley wrote a letter to both judges demanding answers. How did this happen? And on the one hand,

Kathryn Rubino:

Great question, how did it happen? Yeah,

Joe Patrice:

On the one hand look, on the one hand, yes, somebody should ask the question, how did this happen? What safe guardrails should exist to prevent it in the future? I was less, despite the fact, and those questions are in here, I was a little more negative about this letter because I feel as though the letter also took kind of a grandstanding position. There’s a lot of how dare you be using ai, which I think is probably throwing a baby out with bath water situation. I do think that there’s probably good ways in which it responsibly could be used to accelerate the writing workflow, but obviously the real question should be, how did this happen? How are you going to help your colleagues and the rest of the federal judiciary avoid having this happen?

Kathryn Rubino:

I think right now we’re in a weird moment with this technology where people who are pretty smart think that they’re too smart to fall for the hallucinations, right? There was another case, right, where Deloitte very famously put out a report for the Australian government with a bunch of fake citations. A law professor was like, Hey, you cited my colleague. This is not what she writes about. And quickly figured out that it was AI and they had to refund the government a bunch of money, but it’s because they think they’re too good to get caught. Of course, I can use it, maybe make my life better, not necessarily pass those benefits onto clients or to any of the other stakeholders, but I can do it and I won’t get caught.

Joe Patrice:

Well, so there’s obviously lawyer hubris. We’re never going to discount lawyers’ ego, but I actually think a lot of it is the companies themselves. We have tech bros who are raising money hand over fist from venture capitalists, throwing it at them. Part of that process is to constantly pretend that the world is radically changing every time they do this. We had G PT five came out and right before it did, Sam Altman was going around talking about how it scared him, how good it was, and then it came out and it is to say a step underwhelming to say a step improvement over the last iteration is probably too much. So we have this,

Chris Williams:

Hey man, I remember, what was it three years ago? Forget AI generated videos. Just the AI pictures we used to get look like stroke symptoms. So I’m like, just imagine the orders of magnitude of improvement from that to this. So it’s right now people are like, oh, look at the hands Before then I was like a toddler could do it better than it. So I’m of the mind of give this a year and this is going to be full length movies coming up.

Joe Patrice:

Well, it’s video and image creation. No doubt, no doubt. The video and image creation is definitely getting better. But what I’m kind of going with is that we have these folks saying all this and we have an uncritical media infrastructure repeating how revolutionary it all is, and I think there’s lawyers who are hearing that and saying, yeah, it might’ve screwed up things in the past, but it won’t do that now, which isn’t true.

Kathryn Rubino:

Sure,

Joe Patrice:

It just is not true. That is not what you should be using AI for, and there are ways in which AI is super valuable and you should be using it. That’s not one of them. It is a very good summary tool for getting through a bunch of deposition transcripts. Now, is it going to give you direct quotes? It can maybe, but it could also make up some of those quotes. So don’t do that. But if you want the thrust of what happened and the top 10 bullet points and where to go within the transcript to find them, it’s going to do that really well. You just have to kind of understand what its limits are. And right now it doesn’t seem like anybody does, and I think you’re right. You’ve got the lawyer ego, you’ve got a media diet of everything’s been fixed and now it’s magic and those things combine to get people doing this.

And so back to the federal judge situation though, obviously judges are overworked and all. It was interesting I thought that judges got hit with all this because the historical knock on judges is that they don’t actually write any of this stuff. They like decide which of the two briefs they like and copy and paste all the work that those lawyers did, which of course is the reason why people need to be very worried about lawyers having hallucinations. That’s why we had that Georgia case where a judge just uncritically rubber stamped hallucinations that a lawyer had. It’s Another reason, by the way, why a few weeks ago that we had some, was this a good idea where a lawyer got sanctioned for having hallucinations and the other party who didn’t have any also got a slap on the wrist because they didn’t catch it? And folks are like, well, that doesn’t seem fair. But I mean the reason for that is that judges more or less are trusting the briefs and trusting that the other side is zealously, making sure that they’ve answered it and if they are falling down on that job, that is a signal. So here, obviously inserting new stuff was the problem and it’s unfortunate. It’s almost like judges tried to do something beyond just copy and pasting the briefs and then introduced more problems,

Kathryn Rubino:

Never tried too hard. That’s the lesson. The lesson is never

Joe Patrice:

Try, but it is a real problem. It really does come back to, Hey folks, don’t not use this stuff, but you have to understand exactly what it can do and very much what it cannot, and you are being sold a bill of goods about what it can do. That is not what it can do, but what it can do if you understand how to use it and run it through your process responsibly, is actually super valuable. That’s going to be the challenge I think of the next few years, is convincing people not to listen to the hype and understand what it really does. Alright, thanks everybody for listening. You should be subscribed to shows so you get new episodes when they come out. Leave reviews, write things, stars. That all helps. You should be listening to the ott Catherine’s other podcast. I’m a guest on the Legal Tech Week Journalist round table. You should be listening to other shows on the Legal Talk Network. You should read Above the Law, so you read these and other stories before we get to them. It’s mostly over at Blue Sky and still at Twitter too at ATL blog, but also on Blue Sky the above law.com. I’m at Joe Patrice Catherine’s at Kathryn one. Chris is at Writes for Rent. And with that, we will talk to you next week. Peace. Peace.

Continue Reading